Origins of close order infantry and discipline? - Historum

Darth Roach · November 2nd, 2011, 07:45 AM

Thread name self explanatory.

**pikeshot1600** · November 2nd, 2011, 08:05 AM

Weaponry was usually more effective when massed in tighter formations. (Greek Phalanx and refined with Roman maniples.) Both pole arms -spears/pikes - and missile weapons bows/musketry - had better effectiveness when massed and when soldiers practiced their roles (drill).

Both pike (and then shot) were more effective with disciplined mass formations (Swiss/Spanish and then Dutch/Swedish refinements). Practice through drill made for both professionalism, and for discipline. After about 1590, Dutch soldiers drilled nearly every day which encouraged repetitiveness and occupied their time.

It also made for better control as a soldier knew what was expected of him. That had not always been the case as when soldiers were hired only for a campaign, left to fend for themselves in terms of food and shelter, and their behavior was not supervised. They were then disbanded at the end of a campaign season.

Modern troops still benefit from drill ("Drill is a pill best taken daily.")

Just some thoughts.

**irishcrusader95** · November 2nd, 2011, 08:07 AM

i guess it starts when warfare began. people must have soon seen the advantage of having a force that fights as one rather then a mass horde. the greek phalanx would be an early example

**Frank81** · November 2nd, 2011, 10:26 AM

In Sumer you can find it

xander.XVII · November 2nd, 2011, 11:53 AM

How can someone withstand to a bayonet charge or muskets' fire from close distance without being in a disciplined group of comrades?

**irishcrusader95** · November 3rd, 2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank81

In Sumer you can find it

when does that date from?

all the early civilizations of antiquity seem to have fought as one in close not formations, the greeks, romans, carthaginians and others. can anyone tell me if the persians fought in closely disciplined formations or any of the other most ancient armies like the egyptians, babylonians and hittites.

Tercio · November 3rd, 2011, 10:00 AM

I would say with modern discipline with small arms DEFINITELY the Tercios of Flanders, although by my username I'm sure you can see I'm bias....although I suppose I have to aggree with revious posters about the Phalanx in ancient times. But remember military discipline was largely lost until the resurgence of small arms discipline led by Habsburg Spain

Tercio · November 3rd, 2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishcrusader95

when does that date from?

all the early civilizations of antiquity seem to have fought as one in close not formations, the greeks, romans, carthaginians and others. can anyone tell me if the persians fought in closely disciplined formations or any of the other most ancient armies like the egyptians, babylonians and hittites.

And to continue the Tercio was a formation.
The first that utilised specific roles inside one formation with typically 3 infantry types

Poly · November 3rd, 2011, 02:54 PM

I think it works both ways.

Commanders want their men packed close together for ease of control.

The men themselves when presented with the violence of battle naturally seek to get close to their comrades for mutual support.

**pikeshot1600** · November 3rd, 2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poly

I think it works both ways.

Commanders want their men packed close together for ease of control.

The men themselves when presented with the violence of battle naturally seek to get close to their comrades for mutual support.

I would view that in the past tense. Individuality and open order skirmishing have been the norm since the disasters of WW I.